1 / 45

Yintsuo Huang

Lynn University Doctoral Dissertation Defense Hearing Leadership Style, Leader-Member Exchange, and Performance for a Family-Run Multinational Taiwanese Enterprise. Yintsuo Huang. Introduction to the Problem. 1. Managers Executives

chick
Télécharger la présentation

Yintsuo Huang

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lynn UniversityDoctoral Dissertation Defense HearingLeadership Style, Leader-Member Exchange, and Performance for a Family-Run Multinational Taiwanese Enterprise Yintsuo Huang

  2. Introduction to the Problem • 1. Managers Executives • 2. Link among leadership style, leader-member exchange, and organizational performance.

  3. Two Purposes of the Study • 1. Correlational(explanatory) purpose:  explain manager perceptions of leadership style, leader-member exchange, and organizational performance in a family-run multinational enterprise

  4. Purposes of the Study • 2. Comparative (exploratory) purpose:  to determine whether there are differences according to manager characteristics and according to organizational characteristics of the headquarters or subsidiaries of managers

  5. Definition of Terms Family-Run MNE Characteristics of Manager Leadership Style Organizational Characteristics Leader-Member Exchange Organizational Performance

  6. Justification • Researchable Concepts of theoretical framework and hypotheses can be measured and tested • Feasible Subjects, costs, and time were available and manageable

  7. Justification (cont.) Significance • Ensuring the personnel grow in the skills, knowledge, and abilities to perform at the leaders’ highest possible expectations. • Combine traditional values and Western business practices

  8. Review of Literature University of Michigan Studies Ohio State University Studies Leader-Member Exchange (LMX Theory) Characteristics of Multinational Organizations Leadership (Situational Leadership Theory) Path-Goal Theory Multinational Enterprise Family-Run Business (Confucian, Japanese, and Western Values) National Cultures (Hofstede’s Model) Headquarters And Subsidiaries Organizational Performance (Kaplan and Norton’s Balanced Scorecard model)

  9. Literature Gaps Empirical Studies • Relationship among leadership style, leader-member exchange, and organizational performance. • No measure of Kaplan and Norton • LEAD-Other applied to collective leadership (such as in family run MNE) • MNE cultural dimensions and performance

  10. Research Question 1 Descriptive: • Characteristics managers + • Organizational characteristics + • Organizational performance In a family-run Taiwanese MNE

  11. Research Question 2 Descriptive:manager perceptions of: • Leadership Style • Leader-Member Exchange

  12. Research Question 3 Exploratory-Differencesaccording tocharacteristics of managers of: • Leadership style of executives (2) Leader-member exchange (3) Organizational Performance

  13. Research Question 4 Exploratory-Differences according to organizational characteristics of managers’ headquarters or subsidiaries (1) Leadership style of executives (2) Leader-member exchange (3) Organizational Performance

  14. Theoretical Framework MNE (Robison) Family Run (Siehl & Marshall ) Cultural Dimensions of Nations (Hofstede) Leadership Style (Hersey & Blanchard) LMX (Graen) Organizational Performance (Kaplan & Norton)

  15. Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions of Nations

  16. Executive Leadership Style, Style Range, and Style Adaptability H1 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Characteristics of Managers Characteristics of Managers’Headquarters or Subsidiaries H3 H2 Performance of Subordinate Managers’ Headquarters or Subsidiaries Financial H2a, H3a, Customer H2b, H3b Internal Business Processes H2c, H3c Learning and Growth H2d, H3d

  17. Research Methods Research Design • Quantitative, non-experimental • Correlational (explanatory) • Comparative (exploratory) • Mailed survey

  18. President 1 Executives 3 GM 1 Vice GM 18 12 67 68 17 U.S. Canada Taiwan China Thailand Target Population of182 Managers and Assistant Managers

  19. Instrumentation

  20. Methods of Data Analysis Psychometric Analyses Reliability Analysis – Coefficient Alphas Construct Validity – Exploratory Factor Analysis Convergent and Divergent Validity – Pearson r

  21. RQ 1 and RQ 2 Descriptive Research Design --> Descriptive Statistics RQ 3 and RQ 4 Exploratory Research Design Comparative StatisticsIndependent t tests or Mann Whitney U  (2 group comparisons) ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis H with post hoc comparisons (3 or more group comparisons)

  22. Hypotheses Testing Explanatory (Correlational) Research Design--> Multiple Regression Analysis – Major Steps STEP 1: Identify Possible Explanatory Variables for Regression Model– Find correlated variables with dependent variable (all relationships examined).  If: a. Two Continuous Variables (Linear Relationship) i.Pearson r Correlation ii. Example:  LMX and Organizational Perf.

  23. Continued: Find correlated variables with the dependent variable b. One Categorical and One Continuous Variable (Non-Linear Relationship) i.  Eta ii. Example: Location and Org. Perf. iii. If Eta shows a trend (p<=.10)or significance (p<=.05), categorical variable converted to dummy variable iv. Pearson r Correlation of Dummy variable and dependent (Linear Relationship) –

  24. STEP 2:   Hierarchical (forward) Linear Regression Analyses a.EnterSignificant or Trend Variables (r, p=<.10):  strongest to weakest b. MulticollinearityExamined: VIF and Tolerance (remove variables) c. Significant Models = F and p d. Select Best Explanatory Model  Examine R2 and AdjustedR2

  25. RESULTS

  26. Comparative Analysisof the Location of Managers: Target Population (N=182) and Sample (N=126) Data Producing Sample (N=126)

  27. Psychometric Analysis: EFA for LEAD-Other

  28. Psychometric Analysis:EFA for LMX and Organizational Performance

  29. Summary Psychometric Analysis: Reliability

  30. Summary Psychometric Analysis:Validity

  31. Research Question 1 Manager Characteristics • 116 male, 10 female • 31 to 40 • Asian • Taiwan • One to three years of college • 6 to 10 (year employed), 1 to 5 (tenure) Organizational Characteristics • More than 3000 (TW, CHA, Thai) • PDI (TW, CHA, Thai), IDV (US, CAN)

  32. Research Question 2 Leadership Style Style Frequency • 37% Telling • 32% Selling • 22% Participating • 9% Delegating Style Range • 59% Two-Style, 28% Three-Style Style Adaptability 82% low range Leader-Member Exchange • Almost 50% very high

  33. ANOVA and Comparisons of Leadership Style, Leader-Member Exchange, and Organizational Performance Research Question 3 Origin: Country of Origin

  34. Comparisons of Leadership Style, Leader-Member Exchange, and Organizational Performance Research Question 4 L: Location OS: Organizational Size PDI: Power Distance Index IDV: Individualism LTO: Long-Term Orientation UAI: Uncertainty Avoidance Index

  35. Executive Leadership Style Style, Style Range, and Style Adaptability Hypothesized Model H1 and H2 H1 Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) H2 Performance of Subordinate Managers’ Headquarters or Subsidiaries Learning and Growth Performance Internal Business Process Performance Customer Perspective Performance Financial Performance

  36. Results of Hypotheses Testing: H1 and H2

  37. Hypothesized Model H3 Executive Leadership Style Style, Style Range, and Style Adaptability Characteristics of Managers' Headquarters or Subsidiaries Characteristics of Managers Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) H3 Performance of Subordinate Managers’ Headquarters or Subsidiaries Learning and Growth Performance Internal Business Process Performance Customer Perspective Performance Financial Performance

  38. Results of Hypotheses Testing: H3

  39. DISCUSSION • Interpretations • Practical Implications • Conclusions • Limitations • Recommendations for Future Study

  40. Interpretations

  41. Practical Implications • Communication, meeting  Reward • Create Learning and Growth • LMX important to performance • Limited high readiness • Cultural Differences  Organizational Performance (relationship

  42. Conclusions • LEAD-Other: Internal consistency reliability and construct validity were not established. • LMX and Organizational Performance good internal consistency reliability and established construct validity. • LMX  a consistent explanatory variable of organizational performance total and subscales. • Organizational Performance Scale reliable and valid.

  43. Limitations • Small sample • One MNE • LEAD-Other reliability and validity not established

  44. Recommendations • Different departments • Leadership behavior • Interview or observations • Construct validation studies: Modified LEAD-Other & Organizational Performance Scale

  45. Thank you (謝謝)

More Related